(from "Chairman's Report of the Forty-Fourth Annual Meeting")

There is a standing request by the Commission to the Scientific Committee to assess the effects of carrying over catch limits or strikes. The Sub-committee recommended that the Commission repeat this request, and noted the statement that the USA intended to work on this matter with the Scientific Committee.

10.2 Report of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee
This Sub-committee was convened prior to the Annual Meeting by Dr A.R. Burne (UK) who presented its report to the Technical Committee. Delegates from Australia, Brazil, Chile, People's Republic of China, Denmark, Dominica, Germany, Iceland, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, St Vincent and The Grenadines, Spain, Sweden, UK and USA attended the Sub-committee, together with observers from the non-member Government of Canada and 19 NGOs.

The Commission agreed last year that a full discussion of any new management procedure for aboriginal subsistence whaling could only usefully take place after an RMP for commercial whaling had been established. The Scientific Committee noted the three broad management objectives for any aboriginal subsistence whaling scheme accepted by the Commission in 1981:

(1)

to ensure that the risks of extinction to individual stocks are not seriously increased by aboriginal whaling;

(2)

to enable aboriginal people to harvest whales in perpetuity at levels appropriate to their cultural and nutritional requirements, subject to the other objectives; and

(3)

to maintain the status of whale stocks at or above the level giving the highest net recruitment and to ensure that stocks below that level are moved towards it, so far as the environment permits.

The Scientific Committee needed guidance on whether the 1981 objectives still apply. Summing up the ensuing discussion, it was suggested that the Sub-committee might propose that the Commission ask the Scientific Committee to look at problems in the old aboriginal subsistence scheme and, for the time being, ask the Commission for confirmation of current objectives. This was against the background that the development of a revised aboriginal subsistence scheme could take some time; and that an RMP needed to be in place before the final development of a management scheme for aboriginal subsistence whaling.

The Sub-committee recommended that the Commission request the Scientific Committee to conduct initial work on this topic, and noted the urgency of the Scientific Committee's request regarding the definition of management objectives for aboriginal whaling. The Sub-committee also proposed that the development of new objectives be considered.

Discussion of this matter in the plenary involving comments from Brazil, Mexico, USA and the Chairman of the Scientific Committee made it clear that the Commission was not in a position to give advice to the Scientific Committee at this meeting, but it could be added to the agenda for next year. The Chairman invited governments to send suggestions for the development of these objectives during the year.

10.2.1 Bering-Chukchi-Beaufort Seas stock of bowhead whales
The Scientific Committee had reviewed the catch statistics for the Alaskan aboriginal subsistence hunt. The Committee had received no new information that would warrant changing its management advice concerning this stock. The catch limit was for the years 1992, 1993 and 1994 with provision for annual review by the Scientific Committee. In the light of the unchanged advice of the Scientific Committee no changes were proposed by the Technical Committee.

The USA provided information on a tenth whaling community at Little Diomede which had been overlooked in previous analyses of subsistence and cultural needs. The last whale landed at Little Diomede was in 1937 but it was suggested that there was the need for one whale per year, although there was no proposal to amend the Schedule for catches at this time.

These comments were noted by the plenary when reiterated there by the USA, and the need supported by Denmark. Spain considered this to be a matter of internal distribution, and thought recognising an additional need of one whale would have to be looked into more profoundly in the future. The USA recorded that it did not agree that the problem could be resolved by internal allocation of quotas presently allowed.

The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee stated that it would appreciate receiving the information on struck and lost rates to be presented to the Infractions Sub-committee.

One bowhead whale from this stock had been taken by Canada and landed at Shingle Point on 4 September 1991. A number of questions were asked about the collection of data, by the USA, by New Zealand on the need for the subsistence take and by Australia on its continuation. It was thought inappropriate by the Canadian observer present in the Sub-committee to respond to these. The Canadian Government observer in the plenary later provided information under Agenda Item 25. This confirmed that the Government of Canada will make available the biological information collected. The Canadian Constitution guarantees the rights of aboriginal peoples to hunt and fish for subsistence purposes but no decisions have been made concerning the future hunting of bowheads. There had been no request for a licence to hunt in 1992. The USA appreciated receiving this information and urged Canada to reconsider its position of not being a member of the IWC, while Japan recognised the diligence of Canada in providing data to the Commission.

10.2.2 North Pacific eastern stock of gray whales
The catch limit for this stock is 169 whales a year for 1992, 1993 and 1994. No information on catch statistics, method of killing, distribution of the meat or biological data had been received from the Russian Federation this year. The Sub-committee requested the Secretariat ask for this information. It was agreed to recommend that the review of this quota be left until the next review period.

In the plenary, Mexico appealed to the authorities in charge of surveillance for more research on the abundance of this species.

10.2.3 North Atlantic West Greenland stock of fin whales
The last major advice given by the Scientific Committee was in 1989 and there was no new advice this year. The Sub-committee agreed that there was no need to propose changes during this Annual Meeting.

10.2.4 North Atlantic Central stock of minke whales
No new advice had been given by the Scientific Committee on this stock. Denmark, referring to all Greenland catches, noted that in 1990 the Commission had recognised a subsistence need for meat from large whales at West Greenland of 670 tonnes per year. This yearly catch limit now stood at the equivalent of 420 tonnes. The Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee noted these points.

Other business
Terms of reference
As a result of the planned restructuring of the Annual Meeting, decisions would go directly from the various Sub-committees to the plenary session. Brazil pointed out that the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee was charged with analysing the need for aboriginal subsistence takes, and catch limits were generally considered in the Technical Committee. It therefore suggested that the terms of reference of the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee be revised to include preliminary discussion on the request for quotas.

USA pointed out that many pieces of information were necessary to determine catch limits, including needs assessment (from this Sub-committee), status of stocks (from the Scientific Committee), humane killing information (from the Humane Killing Working Group) and data on efficiency (from the Infractions Sub-committee). All were necessary facets of the catch limit decision which had traditionally been discussed in the Technical Committee. Whatever mechanism was selected, it must recognise this complexity.

The Sub-committee agreed that it was faced with an interim position as the organisation of the Commission's work changed. The Commission needed to be apprised of the concerns of the Sub-committee and the need to ensure that all relevant aspects were properly considered in any revision of work practice. There was likely to be a need for changes to its terms of reference and the Commission should determine how to handle this.

St Vincent and The Grenadines Whaling
St Vincent and The Grenadines reported on its limited aboriginal subsistence hunt. One female whale was taken in 1992. It was 35ft long and was not lactating. No stomach contents were analysed. The animal was eaten by the people of the island. In addition, one large male was struck-and-lost. The Sub-committee noted this information with thanks.

10.3 Action arising
In the Technical Committee, Denmark indicated that the catch limit for the West Greenland fin whales is 21 set for one year while that for east coast minke whales is 12 for each of the years 1990, 1991 and 1992. It proposed no changes in these catch limits but suggested that they should both be set for the two years 1993 and 1994 so that all the aboriginal subsistence whaling catch limits could be reviewed together in 1994. This was agreed by consensus for recommendation to the plenary.

In the plenary, Switzerland asked if whales struck by rifle shots are included in the quotas. Denmark stated that the minke whale catch limit on the west coast of Greenland includes struck and lost. Rifles are not used for the west coast fin whale fishery. On the east coast, the number of whales is very small compared with the stock, and rifles are not often used due to ice conditions.

The Commission then approved the catch limits by consensus.

The Russian Federation indicated that there were technical reasons for not providing information on its catches and subsistence need due to internal reorganisation, but its request for the catch was unchanged from previous years.

The Technical Committee agreed to transmit the concerns over the terms of reference to the plenary. Further discussion of this issue in the plenary between Brazil, Denmark, Mexico, USA and Australia led to the conclusion that the Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling Sub-committee should report to the Technical Committee in future, so that all the factors bearing on consideration of catch limits have at least one primary discussion there before being debated in plenary. The decision on what matters are referred to the Technical Committee would be made early in the plenary meeting.

The UK recalled the discussions in earlier years on the whalemeat conversion factors in the Greenland subsistence fishery and Denmark responded that there had been no change in its position.

_